Compared to brick and mortar ones, enterprise architectures come with two critical extensions, one for their ability to change, the other for the intertwine of material and symbolic components.
On that account the standard systems modeling paradigm is to fall short when enterprise changes are to be carried out in digital environments.
Problems & Solutions
Whatever the target (from concrete edifices to abstract polities), models come first in architect’s toolbox. Applied to enterprise architectures, models have to fathom different kinds of elements: physical (hardware), logical (software), human (organization), or conceptual (business).
From that point, what characterizes enterprise architectures is the mingling of physical and symbolic components, and their intrinsic evolutionary nature; problems and solutions have to be refined accordingly.
With regard to time and the ability to change, problems and solutions are defined by specific and changing contexts on one hand, shared and stable capabilities on the other hand. As for symbolic components, a level of indirection should be introduced between enterprise and physical spaces:
- At enterprise level problems are defined by business environment and objectives (aka business model), and solved by organization and activities, to be translated into processes.
- At system level problems are defined by processes requirements, and solved by objects representation and systems functions.
- At platform level problems are defined by functional and operational requirements, and solved by applications design and configurations.
Such layered and crossed spaces are to induce two categories of feedback:
- Between problems and solutions spaces, represented respectively by descriptive and prescriptive models.
- Between layers and corresponding stakeholders, according to contexts, concerns, and time-frames.
Whereas facilitating that two-pronged approach is to be a primary objective of enterprise architects, the standard modeling paradigm (epitomized by languages like UML or SysML) is floundering up and down: up as it overlooks environments and organizational concerns, down by being overloaded with software concerns.
How to Sort Means (Systems) from Ends (Business)
Extending the system architecture paradigm to enterprise is the cornerstone of enterprise architecture as it provide a principled and integrated governance framework:
- Business strategic planning: integration of intensional and extensional representations respectively for organisation and systems and business and physical environments.
- System architecture: integration of portfolio management and projects planning and development combining model based and agile solutions .
- Business intelligence: integration of strategic operational decision-making.
Bringing representations of environments, organization, and systems under a common conceptual roof is critical because planing and managing changes constitute the alpha and omega of enterprise architecture; and changes in diversified and complex organizations cannot be managed without maps.
The Matter of Change
Compared to systems architectures, change is an intrinsic aspect of enterprises architectures; hence the need for a modeling paradigm to ensure a seamless integration of blueprints and evolutionary processes.
Taking example from urbanism, the objective would be to characterize the changes with regard to scope and dependencies across maps and territories. On that account, the primary distinction should be between changes confined to either territories or maps, and changes affecting both.
Confined changes are meant to occur under the architectural floor, i.e without affecting the mapping of territories:
- Territories: local changes at enterprise (e.g organisation) or systems (e.g operations) levels not requiring updates of architecture models.
- Maps: local changes of domains or activities not affecting enterprise or systems elements at architecture level (e.g new features or business rules).
Conversely, changes above architectural floor whether originated in territories or maps are meant to modify the mapping relationship:
- Changes in business domains (maps) induced by changes in enterprise environments (e.g regulations).
- Changes in operations (systems) induced by changes in activities (e.g new channels).
That double helix of organizational, physical, and software components on one hand, models and symbolic artifacts on the other hand, is the key to agile architectures and digital transformation.
- Digital Transformation & Homeostasis
- Entropy & Homeostasis
- Knowledge-based Models Transformation
- Focus: Data vs Information
- Modeling Paradigm
- Views, Models, & Architectures
- Abstraction Based Systems Engineering
- EA & MDA
- EA: The Matter of Layers
- EA: Maps & Territories
- EA: Work Units & Workflows
- Ontologies & Enterprise Architecture
- Ontologies as Productive Assets
- Models Transformation & Agile Development
- Agile Architectures: Versatility meets Plasticity